Positive Discrimination - Positive Action

[RogueHanger]

In addition to Noseall's comment (small organisation - grafters necessary) and cajar's enquiry (golf shop - new employees)

Taking positive action is voluntary. (same link) http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/...ment/positive-action-and-recruitment/[/QUOTE]

But, negative action is illegal.

 

[RogueHanger]

herring must be preparing a 30 page essay at this stage.

Norcon must be trying to extricate his foot out of his mouth at this stage.

 

[Big Tone]

I see racism in discussions like these. If I stated that most kiddie fiddlers are white males I'd be stating a fact and no one would complain that I'm racist. If someone states another statistic involving blacks in not such a good light the do gooders get a right huff on and call you racist. Why??

All races have their faults.
All races have their good points.

Unfortunately, for some reason it is not acceptable to point some of these out. There are those who would have us believe that we are all the same. A ridiculous suggestion.

This is why I am always careful to explain my belief that we should all have equal opportunities, rather than to suggest we are all equal. We are not and never will be: we are all different.

I'm
Okay with that to a point JBR. But then you get into the realms of feeling superior over someone with a disability or gender difference. And before you know it, we're back in the dark ages.

Did the word 'superior' cross my lips?

I said 'different' and different races are different in some ways. An example was already pointed out by someone earlier: that the best runners are black men. Surely, doesn't that makes them superior to other races?

I wasn't putting words in your mouth but the inference was/is that if we're not all equal then, de facto, does that not mean one is inferior and therefore the other superior? What and how do you mean by "not equal"? I'm just asking; I may or may not agree with you if I understand...

 

[RogueHanger]

I've changed the heading to read "Positive Discrimination - Positive Action" in recognition of my mistaken use of an incorrect terminology.

To all intents and purposes, I meant "Positive Action" which is the same in the concept, meaning and results as Positive Discimination.

I now realise and accept that Positive Discrimination is illegal (under EHRC) whereas Postive Action is legal.

 

[Big Tone]

I didn't know you could change the title once you started the thread.

Still think discrimination shouldn't be in it though

 

[RogueHanger]

I didn't know you could change the title once you started the thread.

Still think discrimination shouldn't be in it though

I totally agree, now that I realised my mistake. But I think a) it would be unfair to just change the title and b) leaving the "discrimination" word in there, helps to recognise that I made a mistake by using the wrong terminology.

Just checked, only on the OP can you change the title.

BTW, even though I vehemently disagree with some comments, I also wholeheartedly agree with some others. But I'm wary of using the "thanks" indicator because I don't wish to perpetuate the idea of gangs, factions, or groups of opposing views.

 

[Big Tone]

Yes, I understand and respect goes to you, from me at least, for that post.

The trouble on these GD type boards is no one is ever wrong or has the bottle to admit it. As far as I'm concerned the matter is closed and I've learnt from it.

I fear it's morphed into something else now however....

 

[RogueHanger]

I fear it's morphed into something else now however....

Don't they always?

 

[Big Tone]

BTW, even though I vehemently disagree with some comments, I also wholeheartedly agree with some others. But I'm wary of using the "thanks" indicator because I don't wish to perpetuate the idea of gangs, factions, or groups of opposing views.

That's very true, but I differ from you because I like to give credit where due but it is only for the post, although I may also like that person.

Someone can slag me off all they like, as has happened, but if they make a good post I'll give thanks even if it's Satan himself. That's why I look like a body-swerver perhaps. It looks hypocritical but isn't that how we should all be?

Your reputation is lower than a snakes belly here for some or many, from your past AFAIK. So even if you came on and made the best most honest and accurate post, they'd still not give you praise. I am not like that; I cannot be like that.

Until we cross swords again, or not, take care....

 

[EFLImpudence]

Just as a semantic point:

RH tried to persuade us that positive discrimination is good because it is better than negative discrimination.


Could anyone tell me what exactly IS negative discrimination?


If not, then it will follow that positive discrimination is also actually meaningless apart from describing the discriminatory practice for which it was invented.

 

[RogueHanger]

Just as a semantic point:

RH tried to persuade us that positive discrimination is good because it is better than negative discrimination.


Could anyone tell me what exactly IS negative discrimination?


If not, then it will follow that positive discrimination is also actually meaningless apart from describing the discriminatory practice for which it was invented.

Why not ask/inform the EHRC

This is not the same as ‘positive discrimination’ or ‘affirmative action’ which equality law does not allow.

http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/...ment/positive-action-and-recruitment/[/QUOTE]

 

[EFLImpudence]

Ah -

"This is not the same as ‘positive discrimination’ or ‘affirmative action’ which equality law does not allow".

So, you have been defending that which is illegal.


So, someone has now had to think of another term to help people with a 'protected characteristic'.

 

[RogueHanger]

So, you have been defending that which is illegal.

Can I suggest that you catch up and keep up.

 

[cajar]

I've changed the heading to read "Positive Discrimination - Positive Action" in recognition of my mistaken use of an incorrect terminology.

To all intents and purposes, I meant "Positive Action" which is the same in the concept, meaning and results as Positive Discimination.

I now realise and accept that Positive Discrimination is illegal (under EHRC) whereas Postive Action is legal.

No, you said (and described) positive discrimination, not positive action.

From your opening post. Observe.

"So if a person from ethnicity A and a person from ethnicity B both apply and both meet the minimum requirement, but person from ethnicity B meets the preferred requirement in order to meet or maintain targets, they are employed."

You have described selecting a candidate based on their ethnicity which is positive discrimination.

Mind you don't catch your trousers with all that backpedalling, and Tone, you got him, you got him good.

 

[RogueHanger]

I've changed the heading to read "Positive Discrimination - Positive Action" in recognition of my mistaken use of an incorrect terminology.

To all intents and purposes, I meant "Positive Action" which is the same in the concept, meaning and results as Positive Discrimination.

I now realise and accept that Positive Discrimination is illegal (under EHRC) whereas Positive Action is legal.

No, you said (and described) positive discrimination, not positive action.

/........................../

Mind you don't catch your trousers with all that backpedalling, and Tone, you got him, you got him good.

If I must, and because you have as good as insisted, explain how the confusion came about:
I said on Fri 14 Mar (Page 7 of the Lawrence thread)

The police, themselves, recognised the need for positive discrimination to counter the institutional racism endemic within police forces and took some positive action to remedy it.

BT, later, in the ban Rogue Hanger thread said on Wed 16 Apr (page 23)

I don’t believe in positive discrimination. I believe the best person should get the job regardless and irrespective of whoever and however many of a particular stereotype that may or may not be! The clue is in the word “discrimination”.

Which I continued with, in the same thread Page 24 on Thur 17 April

I don’t believe in positive discrimination. I believe the best person should get the job regardless and irrespective of whoever and however many of a particular stereotype that may or may not be! The clue is in the word “discrimination”.

Positive discrimination is sometimes a useful tool for various reasons, eg for overcoming institutional racism, or ensuring that some institutions represent those that they serve, or the employer recognises that a fair mix of people are required, etc.

Sorry, BT, I've been busy and I overlooked this. Did you want to explore your opposition to Positive Discrimination further? I'm up for it.

BT invited me to start a new thread on that subject. Hence, this thread.
Do you see how the confusion arose now?
I’m quite happy to accept responsibility for the continuing confusion. It was partly my fault. If you think that somehow suggests that the concept of Positive Action is wrong, illegal, immoral or whatever, then you’re welcome to your delusion.
Positive Discrimination is illegal, Positive Action is not, but they both are applied for the same problem, they both share the same concepts, methods and procedures and they both, hopefully, achieve the same results.

Now be a good lad, and put the gun down before you shoot yourself in the other foot.